You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Greenfield]

Two dusts list saving throws: Dust of dryness (which is not based on a spell) and dust of illusion (which is based on disguise self and lists the saving throw as an exception to the way the disguise self spell normally works).

The Save ve Disguise Self is in no wy related to the Save v Dust of Illusion. One is to see through it, the other is to resist having the effect go off at all. Additionally, Dust of Choking and Sneezing allows a Save, and has already been mentioned in this discussion.

There is, in fact, only one dust which is based on a spell which allows a saving throw -- which would be the dust of disappearance we're talking about. So looking to the other dusts for precedence of how this issue is handled in D&D isn't particularly valuable.

Maybe circular logic flies where you live, but around here it kinda falls flat. Dust of Disappearance doesn't list a Save. Presuming that it does, and then using that to support the claim that it does, or to tear down arguments that it might not is really bad logic, and really poor argumentative technique. Since I'm forbidden from saying what I think of your mental processes, I'll simply ask that you stop presuming that we're all fools.

And they would be wrong. The only way such a ruling would make sense is if they similarly allow wizards to cast greater invisibility without taking an action because the spell doesn't list a casting time. This is simply not the way the rules work. And if you think it is the way the rules work, adjudicating the use of dust of disappearance is going to be the least of your problems.

And you would be wrong because there's a strong precedent set for "Greater" versions of spells to be based on the lesser. In fact, there's a section in the rules describing this very thing.

Magic items, on the other hand, frequently operate in ways completely different from the spells used to create them. And by "frequently" I mean "almost always".

Examples: SR doesn't apply against Flaming weapon, even though the item has a caster level and a base spell needed to create. Bracers of Armor are based on Mage Armor, but can give bonuses other than +4. A Necklace of Missiles can include Fireball missiles below 5 hit dice, even though 5 is the minimum caster level to throw Fireball at all. One of the Quall's Feather Tokens can create an oak tree, as an instantaneous effect (hence no duration) even though the item is based on Major Creation. The tree far exceeds the volume limit for the spell (five foot diameter trunk, sixty feet high, forty foot diameter crown), and the spell never lets you create living things.

I could go on, but if you want a more complete list just look in the DMG. Other than items which explicitly cast spells, such as wands, scrolls, etc., almost none of the items operate the way the spells used to create them do.

So, in conclusion, you have basic facts wrong, your logic is circular, and your examples are weak at best.

 

[broghammerj]

My three favorite things we've done as "surprises":

1. In one of the biggest battles we've ever fought in the home brew, the entire party was either dead, dying, or captured. My cleric was down to virtually no spells and had just seen the tank go down after getting blasted by flamestrike. I had 2 HP left. The BBEG cleric was perched upon a rocky outcropping commanding the battle. He was out of melee range and we basically had nothing left to hit him with. The remainder of the enemies were decimated but for a few mooks. I looked at my spell list and decided I would stone shape the rock he was standing on and engulf him in stone. He failed a reflex save and was suffocated. The next morning when we got our spells back we opened the rock to find his body was missing (bye bye magic items). The DM decided that stone shape wasn't an offensive spell but the idea was cool so he let it go, but then opted to take some creative liberties to say the cleric had a teleport trigger upon reaching 1 hp. The DM wanted to bring him back to make later appearances. It got no complaints from us.

2. The Gates of Firestorm Peak are guarded by pole arm wielding spriggans that increase their size to hit you over the door with the pole arms. Their reach is fair enough that you can't get to the gates to even climb over an attack. We couldn't even get the adventure really started because we couldn't get in the mountain. On top of that the rest of our party was doing their best to screw up any semblance of a plan. I got so pissed I said I was just going back to town. Showed up with a donkey, wagon, and a spoon. Backed the wagon up to the gate, crawled underneath it, and began digging my way through the wall. Wagon stopped the polearm attacks. Why a spoon? I just wanted to protest the complete idiocy we had just wasted mucking up our previous plan. The DM loved it because it was really impossible for us to do virtually anything against the spriggans.

3. With nearly everyone dead, the mage screams, "There can be only one," and retributive strikes the Red Dragon from Dragon Mountain. Destroyed the dragon, the party, the treasure, and the DM decided the mountain erupted into a volcano. The mage survived the ordeal and was ported to another plane and never heard from again.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Because it seems to need referencing again, Dust of Sneezing and Choking has saves against Con damage, but has no save against the stunning effect. The exact wording is: "Those who succeed on either saving throw are nonetheless disabled by choking (treat as stunned) for 5d4 rounds." The usual interpretation of which tends to be "you're stunned, period, regardless of whether you fail or succeed on a save." Another interpretation is that only succeeding on a save permits the stunned condition. So basically as the monster gets stronger and is more likely to make the save, it's also more likely to get stunned.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Presuming that it does, and then using that to support the claim that it does,

That's not what I said. Apparently your reading comprehension here is as poor as your reading comprehension when looking at the rulebooks. I will accept your apologies for your needless slander at your earliest convenience.

Mod Note: Ladies and Gents, Rules #1 of EN World is, "Keep it civil". We expect you to abide by it, and slipping to personal insults of mental faculties fails in that respect. Keep it classy, or hold off posting until you can. Thanks. ~Umbran

SR doesn't apply against Flaming weapon,

The description of the "flaming" weapon quality doesn't say it works like a spell.

Bracers of Armor are based on Mage Armor

The description of bracers of armor doesn't say they work like a spell.

One of the Quall's Feather Tokens can create an oak tree, as an instantaneous effect (hence no duration) even though the item is based on Major Creation.

The description of the oak feather token doesn't say it works like a spell.

A Necklace of Missiles can include Fireball missiles below 5 hit dice

Well, you've finally found an item that says it works like a spell. Fortunately, it's an excellent example of why you're wrong. The necklace of fireballs states: "When the sphere arrives at the end of its trajectory, it detonates as a fireball spell..." Now, riddle me this: What is the radius of that explosion?

You are, of course, completely baffled by this riddle. After all, you've claimed that we're not allowed to look at the spell description of fireball in order to see how the effect works. Everyone else, on the other hand, understands what I said several messages ago: When a rule in D&D says that it functions like spell X and then lists exceptions, it means it works like spell X except for those exceptions.

(Which, in case this is still baffling you, means that we're capable of looking at the description of a necklace of fireballs, noting the exceptions to the spell description -- i.e., the range, the saving throw, and the amount of damage inflicted -- and then applying the rest of the rules from the fireball spell.)

 

[Hussar]

Ignoring the back and forth about Dust of Disappearance for a while.
[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] - I think the issue that I have with what you said, back a few pages ago, about creating personalities for the spear carriers, for me and only me, is pacing. Like I said in the original example, we'd just been creamed, were pretty pissed off and wanted to come back with a vengeance. We were raising a posse to go kill a monster. These NPC's were being hired for that task and only that task. After the critter was dead, they could go back home.

In a movie, these guys, if they made the credits at all, would be Spear Carrier #1-6. I had no wish, at that time, to learn their life story, nor did I care in the slightest about their background. Could they carry a spear without stabbing themselves? Yes? Great, let's go.

Now, if through play we started interacting more with these guys for some reason, then fair enough, they need personalities and whatnot. But, at that point in time, spending significant time with these NPC's was just so draining that it sucked out all the juice from the scene with the grell. By the time we'd jumped through the hoops, I simply (and I get the feeling that most of the group felt the same way, but, I'll only speak for myself) didn't care anymore.

Now, that's not to say that you should never give NPC's backgrounds and personalities. Of course not. It's just that sometimes it's better to step back and maybe not get bogged down in minutia.

At least, that's my opinion and approach to gaming. Which, as a player, I tend to take as well. If I'm trying to get past a scene with a minimum of time expenditure at the table, I generally mean that as a hint to the DM that I would like very much to move on.

 

[N'raac]

OK, as an open question on the "Players should get to decide what parts of the campaign we explore and which get bruched aside into background" theory.

Assume five players. One dislikes playing out overland travel (that's not the characters' goal, just getting there - get on with it!). A second dislikes dungeon crawls (underground labyrinths are just old school character grinds - make with the storyline already). A third detests social interaction (enough of the GM's improv acting - on with the game!). The fourth detests mysteries, puzzles and riddles (fine for Doyle to write Sherlock Holmes, but he's the character, not the player, and you're no Doyle - let the character roll against his great skills to solve it), while the fifth gets bored in combat (it's about the character, not the mechanics).

So, describe for me the game to be run for this group.

In my world, these guys are extremes, and most players like certain aspects more, and others less, but also like some variety in their game. There may be periods where the game drags a bit for them, but they respect that the game is a group activity and cannot be tailored to their specifics. They also have some trust in the DM (lacking that, why would he be the DM) so they're prepared to give him the oppportunity to lead the game in a planned direction, with some faith there is a payout (much like I don't walk out of a movie because the opening credits didn't enthrall me).

 

[Celebrim]

OK, as an open question on the "Players should get to decide what parts of the campaign we explore and which get bruched aside into background" theory.

Assume five players. One dislikes playing out overland travel (that's not the characters' goal, just getting there - get on with it!). A second dislikes dungeon crawls (underground labyrinths are just old school character grinds - make with the storyline already). A third detests social interaction (enough of the GM's improv acting - on with the game!). The fourth detests mysteries, puzzles and riddles (fine for Doyle to write Sherlock Holmes, but he's the character, not the player, and you're no Doyle - let the character roll against his great skills to solve it), while the fifth gets bored in combat (it's about the character, not the mechanics).

So, describe for me the game to be run for this group.

After 30 years of gaming and nearly as much of being the DM, I would say that what you describe is a more or less average group. So what you end up with is a lot of different things depending on group dynamics. Mostly, what you are dealing with is a group of friends. In some games I've been in with basically that group, one of the members of the group is more gregarious and more demonstrative than the rest, and as a result the group does what that character wants - even if it isn't what is really preferred by anyone else in the group. So if the group is a power gamer, the whole group approaches play from that perspective. It isn't anyone but that one players ideal game, but since they are friends everyone else tolerates the less than ideal play tries to make the most of it and feeds off the table crumbs and scraps that are available to them. In some groups, this situation is unstable. The less involved members of the group gradually find an excuse to drop out, and the group shrinks and then shrinks again and after a dozen or two sessions falls apart. Sometimes it happens more dramaticly, with a huge proxy table fight that leads to hurt friendships and a wrecked game. Sometimes you have multiple forceful personalities. It's even possible to have a table that fights continually and yet enjoys the game. In some groups the forceful personality is the DM, and the game goes on for a while sometimes happily and sometimes unhappily, with the general assumption that to be playing a game that isn't perfect for you is still better than not being able to play at all. What really interesting is watching what happens when the forceful personality isn't there and watch what happens with the play when its allowed to take different directions. A group which at one table is all about power gaming and DM as antagonist, can be when composed slightly differently turn into a group that is all about character exploration and low drama when its freed from the need to keep certain players or DMs happy.

For my part, I know that I can't run a game which at every momment is making every player happy. I try to vary as much as possible the focus of the sessions and provide as much as possible variaty within the sessions. If a session passes by without combat, then usually its pretty important to deliver lots of combat the next session. If a session is all combat, then its usually important to make the focus of the next session something else. It's important to provide all sorts of different oppurtunities for players to express themselves, because what one player considers fun the player sitting beside him might consider a snoozer.

Ideally, you try to foster interest in all aspects of play and try to match players to characters that can shine in their preferred aspect of play but still have things to contribute when it isn't. I have a power gamer who always plays basically the same character - a powerful combat brute who has a bit of a goofy out their personality. I'm pretty sure he does it, perhaps unconsciously, so that he can justify being disruptive when the game runs too long between combats. It's his way of dealing with the problem of 'boring role play', by playing a character that creates conflict and drama. I get players that produce these awesomely concieved deep backgrounds that they match to a character who has almost no combat role. I try to encourage them to power game a little more, both so that they'll be engaged and the player who judges a character solely by how the character is contributing to party success has less reason to be annoyed with the player's thespian tendencies.

In short, as a DM most of the time what you need to run is a diverse game because your players are diverse. It happens that everyone at the table likes the same things equally, but I wouldn't say it is typical.

 

[Celebrim]

I think the issue that I have with what you said, back a few pages ago, about creating personalities for the spear carriers, for me and only me, is pacing.

I can sympathize with that. I've had issues with pacing problems in the past and in particular, dealing with the pacing in the aftermath or midst of PC failure is always problimatic. I still disagree with you on several counts. First, and foremost, this isn't a movie and movie tropes don't really apply. In fact, the scenario you describe doesn't happen in way movies are constructed. It violates the standard heroic narrative, and your solution to it violates the standard heroic narrative.

In general, in movie logic if the PC can't overcome an obstacle, then the PC plus additional help from nameless NPCs certainly can't overcome an obstacle. The fewer ninjas there are, the more dangerous they are. Adding nameless NPC's to a party dilutes the awesome, resulting in a situation where you know that the nameless NPC's are going to die and the protagonists are going to be captured or otherwise defeated. However, the same protagonists returning without help will be able to defeat the obstacle. Secondly, in movie logic the protagonist is never thwarted by a mook or henchmen, such as the Grell, except under direct guidance by the villain. Protagonists aren't overcome by nameless NPC's. If the protagonist is overcome by the NPC near the beginning of the movie, you can bet that the thing that overcame the hero is the main antagonist and whole movie is about the set up for the vengeance that the protagonist works on the antagonist for the wrongs that occurred (such as the death of the minor NPC's). That is the way movies work. They work that way because the writer predetermines the story.

Following your movie logic, the only way recruiting NPC's is going to work is if they aren't nameless NPC's. If recruiting NPC's actually helps, it's because the NPC's are actually co-protagonists and by convention each is given an establishing scene that communicates exactly how the NPC is awesome and helpful and therefore won't dilute the awesome. This is the 'Magnificent Seven' type scene where the party is recruited and we spend 5 minutes or so getting to know each character. This is the recruitment missions in Mass Effect II. You can't recruit nameless NPCs to help you win. You can only recruit party members. If things work like the movies, I'm obligated to 'name' establish the awesomeness of the henchmen. Spear carriers #1-#6 never exist in the movies to overcome an obstacle that the protagonist wasn't able to overcome alone.

Fundamentally though, it isn't adherence to any sort of movie trope that makes me want to play this scene out. It's your insistance on treating the characters as disposable game peices. It's your very disinterest in anyone's life story, background, motivations, and so forth that makes playing the scene out attractive to me. See I don't think it is likely that you will interact with these characters through play. You don't want a reason to interact with them.

Frankly, I don't care about the scene with the Grell. Chances are, when I put the Grell in, it never was with the intention of making the Grell important. It was there as a reasonable combat with a foe I felt suited the environment that I never expected to survive more than a half-dozen rounds and then to be forgotten. If events cause the party to convey importance on the Grell great, but that doesn't necessarily work out the way you think either. It could be that when you go back to kill the Grell, I've decided to give the Grell a name, a personality, goals and motivations because you've vested importance on the NPC and now the Grell has picked up shoppe and has left the dungeon entirely so that I can make the Grell a reoccuring villain. Or maybe the Grell has decided to preemptively strike the PC's, and so attacks the town. Or maybe the Grell would decide to hide in a different spot, or seek an alliance with another dungeon inhabitant? Why should the Grell stand still and wait to be killed? It's got human level intelligence afterall. In any event, I don't see defeating the Grell with the help of some nameless NPCs as being particularly awesome.

I've actually played this out recently. The players recruited a bunch of nameless NPC's to assault the lair of the evil necromancer Tarkus. I didn't play out the recruitments because they were recruited through a named NPC with an existing relationship, and the mook NPC's reported to that named NPC - they weren't hirelings. Tarkus made mince meat of the NPC's (fire ball, conjured horde of fiendish bison, stinking cloud, etc.), then managed (just barely) to flee the PC's. Later, the PC's faced Tarkus alone and defeated him. I'm not saying I would force that on to the story, but generally if you try to defeat NPC's with overwhelming numbers intelligent ones refuse the gambit. They take one look at the approaching army and say effectively, "You may have one this time, but I'll be back."

Maybe you can explain to me why you were wanting to rush back to the Grell encounter as fast as possible? What was the payoff and why did it not need to be delayed and if delayed then it was diminished? Why did you stop caring?

 

[Greenfield]

That's not what I said. Apparently your reading comprehension here is as poor as your reading comprehension when looking at the rulebooks. I will accept your apologies for your needless slander at your earliest convenience.

I never find it convenient to apologize to the arrogant and misinformed.

Mod Note: Unfortunate, because doing so might have avoided the ban you're about to receive... ~Umbran

You cited the Save for Dust of Disappearance as an established fact, as part of the argument over whether there was one. That's circular logic.

You said there were only two Dusts that listed saving throws, when a third one had already been discussed in this thread. That's not only misinformed, but willfully so.

The condescending attitude works a lot better when you aren't so blatantly in error on basic facts. And the irony of you lecturing me on reading comprehension isn't lost on anyone.

I was biting my lip when I wrote my last post, because I know the rules around here regarding polite discourse. I suspect that we're both about to get a reminder from the Mods.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Dust of Disappearance's rules are as follows:

This dust looks just like dust of appearance and is typically stored in the same manner. A creature or object touched by it becomes invisible (as greater invisibility). Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge. Dust of appearance, however, does reveal people and objects made invisible by dust of disappearance. Other factors, such as sound and smell, also allow possible detection.

The greater invisibility bestowed by the dust lasts for 2d6 rounds.The invisible creature doesn’t know when the duration will end.

Moderate illusion; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, greater invisibility; Price 3,500 gp.

The first sentence isn't pertinent to this discussion.

The second sentence spells out the creature or object touched becomes invisible as per greater invisibility. Note that it only seems to mention the invisibility aspect of the spell, which is possibly where this thread's disagreement is coming from. If it's read as simply "the dust only copies the invisibility aspect of greater invisibility" then there is no save because the saving throw part of greater invisibility isn't being referred to. It's essentially saying "Except for every other part of the spell, this item's invisibility effect functions as greater invisibility."

What happens if a save isn't mentioned though? So far I'm seeing all magic items that allow a save explicitly say what the save is. (Necklace of Fireballs is listed as DC 14 Reflex for example). Where is the save for the Dust? How is one to determine what the save would be in the first place if one was allowed, but not mentioned in the item's description? Using Scribe Scroll's rules would say its effect was based on the caster/creator, but potentially having different save strengths is counter to standardizing the item's creation in the first place. The item's cost also plays a factor in this because paying 3,500g for a greater invisibility effect that has the potential to only last 2 rounds is quite high unless the item doesn't allow a save. Then it's still high, but at least it's reliable enough that it's worth making and using in the first place.

Of course, one might read the lack of save as an oversight on the part of WotC. They might have assumed it would only be used on a willing subject. Can we reasonably assume they would have added a save on an unwilling subject? Maybe. But then one still has to wonder what the save would have been in the first place. Then again, perhaps they wanted it to always be useful and reliable in actually producing its effect, thus they decided there would be no save. My thoughts are it's somewhat difficult to make assumptions about their intent.

The third sentence describes what can't see through it, which includes normal vision and magical means such as see invisibility or invisibility purge. One might read that as only applying to normal vision, so a Dreamsight Elite Shifter might be able to see the invisible creature, but it seems safe to say the designers did intend the item's invisibility to not be pierced by any normal or magical means.

The fourth sentence is an exception to the third. It specifically states that Dust of Appearance reveals a creature or object under the effect of Dust of Appearance.

The fifth sentence seems to reinforce the idea that standard or magically-enhanced sight can't be used to detect something under the effect of DoD.

The sixth sentence says that the effect's duration is 2d6 rounds, which can be thought of as a further exception to the second sentence, or it can be clarifying it if one read the second sentence as "this item only replicates the invisibility effect of greater invisibility." I suppose "how long will it work?" is more interesting than "will it work at all?"

The seventh sentence states that the creature doesn't know when it will become visible, so it can't plan on doing something at a certain time. This ties in with the above point of "how long will it work?" being interesting.

Basically, it seems preposterous to think that Dust of Disappearance does have a save simply because it lists greater invisibility as an effect. There is no save listed for it, and deciding what the save would be if it was allowed would be tedious and counter-intuitive to the intent of the item in the first place. Justin, you're wrong. Now, if you were to change its effects for your own campaign, that's fine. But its effects as in the rules show that it does not have a save.